Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 12, 2014.

Ὁ ὁρίζων[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The horizon isn’t particularly related to Ancient Greek. Gorobay (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - discussed at target, no rationale for deletion. WilyD 11:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The concept of a horizon isn't specific to any language or culture. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the term is partially mentioned in the article minus the "Ὁ" --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the concept of the horizon is not restricted to Greece, no particular affinity for Greek. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although it is related to Ancient Greek, as that is the origin of the word, it's still not an exact match. It's partially there, per User:Lenticel, but not quite. Because of this, deleting it is likely the best option.Tavix |  Talk  03:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bahomet[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Added {{R from misspelling}}; any third-party web sites should heed this if they want to avoid publishing typos. -- Beland (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the numerous hatnotes placed on the three different articles Baphomet, Bahamut ‎and Behemoth, either the redirect's creator or other editors believed that this is a plausible misspelling for any of these subjects. However, after doing a search on a search engine for this term, not including the first result (which is a link to its current target), there are no results anywhere proving that this is a plausible misspelling for any of these articles. For that reason, I believe that this redirect should be deleted for being inaccurate and/or ambiguous as it could refer to one of multiple subjects. (I don't believe that creating a disambiguation page would be helpful since I could not find any proof that this is a common misspelling for any of the aforementioned terms.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion. A simple Google search turns up numerous uses of "Bahomet" as a variant or misspelling of "Baphomet", so redirecting is useful. I have no opinion on the utility of disambiguating the other terms. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the case; Google returns results for "Baphomet" instead of "Bahomet" since it thinks that it is a misspelling for it. It even at the top specifically states that it is doing this, and allows the option to search "Bahomet" instead. This just proves the existence of bad search results thanks to Wikipedia mirrors. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually search for "Bahomet" directly, though, rather than simply talking about it, you will find that most such results aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Besides, while it's very bad for Wikipedia to propagate careless errors, an established error simply is an established error, regardless of where it originated. I don't think this misspelling originated on Wikipedia, but it doesn't matter; it's in use and we should help people find the accepted spelling by redirecting from the common incorrect one. Besides, doesn't the fact that Google regards this as a plausible typo support the assertion that it is a plausible typo? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen quite a few cases where a bad redirect in Wikipedia has resulted in several misspelled search results in any search engine, regardless if the redirect is correct or not (spelling, or otherwise). I dealt with an example/redirect recently that had that very issue: Hujk. Thanks to the fact that the redirect targeted an inaccurate target for 7 years, there are some sites that are permanently going to believe that term stands for "Nintendo"; I see this redirect having similar issues. Steel1943 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral according to my Google Books search, "Bahomet" is a corruption of the word "Mahomet" which in turn refers to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. However, there are writers that do use "Bahomet" to refer to "Baphomet". Um, I think I accidentally summoned a goat demon while doing the search--Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Too generic to be disambiguated. - TheChampionMan1234 03:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate we already have multiple topics this is an alternate spelling for listed in this discussion. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issue that I see with this option is that I'm not sure how notable of an alternate spelling this is for any of the topics; this seems more like a situation of "Wikipedia has this misspelling set up as a redirect, so it must be an acceptable alternate spelling". As I stated above, the fact that this redirect has existed targeting its current target unchanged for over 7 years probably hasn't helped matters either. Steel1943 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As pointed out above though, it doesn't matter if the alternative spellings originated with Wikipedia or not (nobody has given any evidence that proves the claim either way), they are now seen as accepted alternative spellings so we do readers a disservice by deleting these redirects. This means we should keep or disambiguate to avoid causing unnecessary harm. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't exactly say disambiguate, but there's probably an actual article to be had here, which I'd find very interesting. I mean, a conflation of Muhammad with pagan gods and mythological figures? I don't believe there isn't scholarship on that. See Mohammedan for a good example of an article on an archaicism. Hindoo is probably the best one-sentence article on the entire Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime, weak keep. With just one letter missing, this is a more likely typo for Baphomet than the other contenders. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Conflict prevention[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Beland (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falls under WP:RFD#D10. Conflict prevention is completely different from conflict resolution, conflict resolution contains no info on conflict prevention. According to D10, that means it's better off as a redlink. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sam Basile[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an inappropriate and improbable redirect -- homonymous misspelling of the infamous "Sam Bacile"; only problem is that there is a real-life person with the name "Sam Basile" who died this year (see here). Quis separabit? 03:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - sensible redirect given context. I don't understand the "inappropriate and improbable" argument. As for the late Mr. Basile, we simply can't account for all of the non-notable people who have names similar to Wikipedia topics, nor should we. Ivanvector (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"[S]ensible redirect given context" -- no, most likely a typo. Second, Sam Bacile is the writer and promoter of Innocence of Muslims, the anti-Islamic video that caused significant trouble for denigrating Islam; no one misfortunate enough to have a similar or homonymous surname should be forced to be affiliated in any way with the imbecile, er Bacile. Quis separabit? 20:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how it's a typo, unless you mean because the video was posted to Youtube under the account "sam bacile" (no caps) in which case it's an {{R from alternate capitalization}}. The target is the confirmed real identity of Sam Bacile, so the redirect makes complete sense. Ivanvector (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, therefore "Sam Basile" should be removed as redirect. Quis separabit? 22:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is the nomination wrong? You nominated Sam Bacile for discussion here. I'll support deleting Sam Basile as a matter of WP:BDP if that's what you meant. Ivanvector (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my mistake -- I meant "Basile" and that was the speedy RFD request I originally made (see [1]). I fixed it (hopefully correctly) above. Sorry and thanks for alerting me, Quis separabit? 22:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we straightened that out :) Ivanvector (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ivanvector's argument, as {{R from misspelling}}. If it's unfortunate for those named "Sam Basile", it must be doubly so for others named "Sam Bacile", yet no-one' suggesting deleting or retargeting that. Si Trew (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. My erroneous misspelling was corrected. @Ivanvector posted that he supports "deleting Sam Basile as a matter of WP:BDP". That is why he struck his keep vote. Quis separabit? 18:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Si, you may have seen this and still favor keeping, but could you clarify whether that's the case? --BDD (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear me, that requires me to think. I think I can think, but oddly it keeps putting things in different sections and not because of ce so this could go anywhere and I am trying to keep it as an anchor. So this is in itself meaningless (which means I can say oh my word zebras could be more colourful, and why don't ferris wheels go anticlockwise, or basically anything, cos it will end up on a search about why zygotic inflammation leads to parenchymal visceral clitorides and woo hoo organic marsupial vegetation). Right so I should have a decent anchor when My Favourite Search Engine loses the lot. Remember, Remember marsupial vegetation. But that is such a large subect. Eucaluyptus. Damn Wikipedia! Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now after that stream of unconsciousness es:Basilio el Grande is possible, but in English the art is Basil of Caesarea (one of the theven theditioth thcribeth of theatharia?) "San Basil" gives that on a search, so perhaps it should go there, but the confluence of a basilica which has nothing to do with basil (name) makes me wonder if I should take the price bet or put it on the nose/ (really our coverage of betting topic is awful. Even betting shop is awful, and I tried to do something about it.) Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Directorate-General for Budget[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move Directorate-General for Budget (European Commission) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avery generic title redirected to a specific title for a single organization. Not a good idea; will surely produce problems in time. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and swap redirect and target. A google search finds that there is a Directorate-General for Budget in the European Commission, Portugal [2], Austria [3] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [4]. The first of these is the only one that we have an article on, and the one that is by far and away the primary topic. Indeed it was only by excluding "European Commission" that I found the others, and of those only the one in Portugal seems potentially notable enough for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list article listing the various governmental entities, and how the generic form relates to other names found in other governments -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swap per Thryduulf. I never thought I might one day agree with Thryduulf, but he is talking sense. I guess I just thank God for it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swap per Codename Lisa. And, er, the other one.Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67.50, there is no point suggesting a list unless you make one as an example. I think I have had two draft DABs being converted over an R here lately because I made a draft. Another couple I think were not done, I don't remember the fails. Someone has to make it so why not make it and then say "there is this draft here". I don't mean by any way to make it a fait accompli but it's sometimes easier to argue against a concrete example than an abstract one. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ae Guk Gah[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, the same term without the H at the end is somewhat plausible as an alternative romanization, but that could also refer to Aegukka as its the same term in its original language - TheChampionMan1234 10:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep this has existed uncontroversially and harmlessly since 2005(!), and it gets lots of traffic (over 100 hits in June and September for example), so there needs to be a very good reason to delete this and I can't see any reason (it looks perfectly plausible to me), let alone a sufficiently good one. Given this has existed so long many google hits are Wikipedia-derived (which is another indication that we shouldn't just casually delete this), and filtering them out isn't easy but I have found some that appear to be independent, including ones which describe the pronunciation of the last syllable as "gah". There is already at hatnote to Aegukka so potential ambiguity is already dealt with (not that it would be a reason to delete anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What the how's your father is eye dialect. Your eyes suddenly have a tendency to pronounce words? It is nonsense and you know it. If it means anything, it is what in English we call "spelling" or "speaking" or "hearing. A nonce term if I signed one.
It is well-known and authority from Fowler, Patridge, et al. that English written and English spoken are more apart than they are in e.g. Spanish or Hungarian which is speak-as-you-spell (because of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the Spanish Language Academy telling someone how to speak as they spell. Fat lot of good that will do. See English as she is spoke. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Windows X[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget with hatnote. -- Beland (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate as I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks of X-Windows when they see "Windows X", and the MicroSoft OS is not X but Windows 10. I've seen Xwin referred to as "Windows X" and "Windows/X" before, and the usenet group is "comp.windows.x" ; not to mention that "x" is also used as a fill-in-the-character on Wikipedia article names (such as Windows 9x), so this can be construed to mean "Windows #", where # is a value to be filled in; and as a mispelling of Windows XP. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to List of Microsoft Windows versions and add a {{redirect|Windows X|the windowing system often called X Windows|X Window System|other uses|Windows (disambiguation)]] hatnote to that page. This is where people meaning "any version of windows" want to get, gives one click access to anyone typoing "Windows XP" and anyone meaning "X Windows". Everyone else is catered for by the dab page link. We could point straight to the dab page, but then people wanting any specific version of Windows would have to via the main Microsoft Windows article, where the list of versions isn't especially prominent, and I really don't think this is a likely search term for people wanting that article - but if I'm wrong on this last part it's linked from the first sentence of my proposed target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with that option (retarget to MS Win versions list, adding hatnote for X-win) I am the nominator -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have a "Windows X" which is as obscure as this strange name for Windows 10. (Its a skin for previous versions of Windows that makes them look like Windows 10.) None of these have due weight for having any sort of advert or coverage on Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to List of Microsoft Windows versions per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Alabahmu[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The original version of this page says: Native Choctaw word from which the State of Alabama receives its name, meaning approximately, "here we may rest." I added it to the list of transliterations in the article, and requested a source from the editor who wrote that. No harm in keeping an extra redirect from transliteration if it doesn't pan out, or we could delete it later. -- Beland (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name isn't mentioned at target, and invalid {{R from misspelling}} - TheChampionMan1234 08:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which dialect, Thryduulf? I'm saying it in my head, and it doesn't sound like any accent I've heard of. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stereotypical generic deep south, with the terminal "u" representing schwa. This is though coming from someone with English ears who is unfamiliar with the actual pronunciations used in the deep south. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I'd think of that as more like "Alabamuh". I'm not sure about this, though; it seems like a rather unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This just seems too implausible to me, either as a misspelling or a conscious search term. --BDD (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects like this, if they actually are eye dialect, serve no purpose but to mock those who say it. Also, the final a is a schwa in pretty much all varieties of English. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_12&oldid=1138579458"